Overpopulation

Every minute, 150 babies are born into the world. That means about 220,000 new human beings a day--80 million a year who need to be fed, clothed, sheltered, educated and employed. 9 out of 10 are born in the third world.

The astonishing Figures come from the 1987 report of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities --State of World Population.

There is no trace of population pressure producing dynamic agricultural innovations in the rice paddies of the Ganges basin, the grain fields of the Nile delta or in the inter-Andean valleys of South America, it says. No evidence, either, in the well-documented history of the populations of England and France. And the Mayan civilization, it is recalled, "fell victim to population pressure' and was extinguished.

This could well do us in. When we eat all the food and take up all the land, what's left but war? We have no plan in place for this, and unless each one of us earns enough to feed nine others in the third world, most are going to be starving. How do we stop growing? Humanity needs to diet!

Most of the growth is coming from third world countries and once they develop more the birth rates will go down a little, so there will still be growth but not as rapid. Of course population is still always growing exponentially and though it will not outstrip food production, a real problem is providing energy to those developing countries, which can't/won't be able to afford to look into alternative energy. If we keep pouring greenhouse gases into the air we're pretty much screwed, and clearing land for agriculture and industry and housing for the growing population definitely isn't helping.

The world is mostly empty. Overpopulation is just another in a string of doomsday myths created by handwringing liberals.

We produce so much food that we find that we need to pay farmers not to grow it and there has never been a time in the history of humanity when resources were less scarce.

Humans barely occupy 3% of the total land surface of the earth. If you gave each individual living 1250 square feet of space for their very own, the entire population of the earth could live within the borders of Texas, leaving the rest of the earth free to provide for their needs.

If you absolutely have to worry about something, at least worry about something real.

The world is mostly empty. Overpopulation is just another in a string of doomsday myths created by handwringing liberals.

We produce so much food that we find that we need to pay farmers not to grow it and there has never been a time in the history of humanity when resources were less scarce.

Humans barely occupy 3% of the total land surface of the earth. If you gave each individual living 1250 square feet of space for their very own, the entire population of the earth could live within the borders of Texas, leaving the rest of the earth free to provide for their needs.

If you absolutely have to worry about something, at least worry about something real.

Click to expand...

If we do produce enough food, why is it that there are those in developing countries who are malnourished? Overpopulation may be the underlying cause, while degredation, and unsustainable development lead to issues such as poverty... which leads to other problems, depending on what anthropological viewpoint you support.

We may only occupy 3% of the land, but is the rest really livable? How about Russia, for example? Places that are uninhabited are uninhabited because they are either too cold/hot, too far, or for some other reason.

When you talk about subsidised food, I assume you are referring to developed countries.

Food is not a worry for us in the developed countries, but issues such as pollution and alternative energy definitely are, and population growth. Rapidly developing countries are often linked to damaging the environment because either 1) they don't have the resources to worry about pollution and alternative energy or 2) DEVELOPING is the first priority, cleaning up can come later or be left to the developed nations... look at China and India for example with the increasing amount of CO2 sputtered into the air (and I understand that I should begin quoting texts!).

I am sure that overpopulation/population affects these poor malnourished children If you're poor, what kinda food can you get?

If we do produce enough food, why is it that there are those in developing countries who are malnourished? Overpopulation may be the underlying cause, while degredation, and unsustainable development lead to issues such as poverty... which leads to other problems, depending on what anthropological viewpoint you support.

Click to expand...

The underlying cause for hunger in poor countries is the outstanding job that environmentalists have done in convincing them that genetically engineered and /or irradiated foods are tools being used by industrialized nations to destroy third world countries. Environmentalists have convinced them that such foods will do everyting from making the men sterile to causing tumors in their children.

In addition, they have prevented farmers from using pesticides, and industrial chemicals that have proven to be not only safe, but able to drastically increase crop yields with their use. They also actively block ranchers from expanding their land use and use of water.

Put quite simply, the people who have created the population bomb panic have decided that since they can not effectively enforce populaiton control, they can achieve the same end by allowing incredible numbers of the poorest to die of disease and starvation.

We may only occupy 3% of the land, but is the rest really livable? How about Russia, for example? Places that are uninhabited are uninhabited because they are either too cold/hot, too far, or for some other reason.

Click to expand...

Are you seriously arguing that only 3% of the land mass of the earth is arable?

Well everyone hated China for enforcing a one child one family law but I think it was actually a brilliant idea. You don't have to enforce it violently but if governments globally reccomended and rewarded people for having smaller families we could reduce the worlds population by half in a single generation. Then there would be radically less pressure on our resources.

If this were to work though you'd need the Catholic Church to accept the neccesity for contraception and the Conservative Christian Right to ease up on abortion. Which is pretty unlikely.

Well everyone hated China for enforcing a one child one family law but I think it was actually a brilliant idea. You don't have to enforce it violently but if governments globally reccomended and rewarded people for having smaller families we could reduce the worlds population by half in a single generation. Then there would be radically less pressure on our resources.

If this were to work though you'd need the Catholic Church to accept the neccesity for contraception and the Conservative Christian Right to ease up on abortion. Which is pretty unlikely.

Click to expand...

China is already facing a looming depopulation crisis. That one child one family idea was pure idiocy. The culture favors sons over daughters and as a result, young men far outumber young women. Do the math.